Nikon Digital SLR guidance

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Neil Jones, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/12/2011 5:45 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:31:55 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/12/2011 4:20 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:37:36 -0400, tony cooper<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> : On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:18:12 +0100, Bruce<>
    >>> : wrote:
    >>> :
    >>> :>"Neil Harrington"<> wrote:
    >>> :>>
    >>> :>>No matter who called whom, Bruce did discuss it with the buyer after the
    >>> :>>sale and made it clear that he didn't know about the in-body motor one way
    >>> :>>or the other. He's been completely open and straightforward in his
    >>> :>>discussion of the whole thing here, and there's not the slightest reason to
    >>> :>>think he was any less so with the customer. I don't even know why it has
    >>> :>>generated all this discussion.
    >>> :>
    >>> :>
    >>> :>Because PeterN never misses an opportunity to express his malice?
    >>> :>
    >>> :>He appears as a bitter, twisted old man whose copious contributions
    >>> :>here are almost entirely negative. Imagine what he could achieve if
    >>> :>he concentrated on the positive, as most people do. He could
    >>> :>potentially make a very strong contribution to constructive debate.
    >>> :>
    >>> :>But no, he chooses malice. A sad and pathetic man, which is why he is
    >>> :>a permanent fixture in my kill file.
    >>> :
    >>> : I was defensive of you because I've seen nothing in your posts to
    >>> : indicate the negative comments were deserved. And, I'll be defensive
    >>> : of PeterN here because I've seen nothing in his posts that reflect
    >>> : your comments above. Other than his comments to and about you, I've
    >>> : seen nothing particularly negative about his posts.
    >>>
    >>> I've never understood why Bruce and Peter hate each other so much. I've always
    >>> assumed that it dates back to something that happened before I came in. If I
    >>> were interested enough, I might have asked somebody. But I'm not.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No, I don't hatred Bruce. I don't even know him and at my age I have
    >> little time for hate. I also have little patience for didactic posting,
    >> whit no facts to back it up. So I call him on it. IIRC He stated if I
    >> said something, whatever it as, again, he would killifle me.
    >> Of course you know what I did.
    >> Also, I don't believe Bruce killfiled me. Just recently, he made a
    >> statement abut me, that was almost a verbatim about something I said
    >> about the moth man. I guess claiming I am killfiled is a good way not to
    >> answer my sometimes pointed questions. RichA tries avoidance, and Bruce
    >> claims I am killfiled. Meanwhile life goes on hopefully for all of us,
    >> in good health for a long time.
    >> No I

    >
    > You do understand that if you have someone killfiled good and proper
    > that you can still read and respond to what they say when someone you
    > don't have killfiled responds to him?
    >
    > This exchange of "I don't hate him" makes me think of a possible
    > future exchange when I write "I don't think nospam is a complete
    > idiot".
    >
    >


    Yup! I understand that. The words "hate him" are a very personal
    statement about an individual. I have stated that I do not like his
    arrogant, bombastic posting style. But I can't hate him as I do not know
    him. For all I know he may very well be an affable, sharing and
    knowledgeable person, or a self centered bastard. I do not know either
    way. It's interesting that Bruce calls me malicious and bitter, yet
    claims to have me killfiled, with the implication that he doesn't read
    what I write. I see a logical inconsistency.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 13, 2011
    1. Advertising

  2. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/12/2011 5:45 PM, tony cooper wrote:

    <snip>

    > This exchange of "I don't hate him" makes me think of a possible
    > future exchange when I write "I don't think nospam is a complete
    > idiot".


    Nobody's perfect.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 13, 2011
    1. Advertising

  3. Neil Jones

    Bruce Guest

    tony cooper <> wrote:
    >You do understand that if you have someone killfiled good and proper
    >that you can still read and respond to what they say when someone you
    >don't have killfiled responds to him?



    No, he quite clearly doesn't understand that at all!
     
    Bruce, Aug 13, 2011
  4. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/13/2011 7:01 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > tony cooper<> wrote:
    >> You do understand that if you have someone killfiled good and proper
    >> that you can still read and respond to what they say when someone you
    >> don't have killfiled responds to him?

    >
    >
    > No, he quite clearly doesn't understand that at all!
    >


    Except the phrase I was referring to was not repeated, AFAIK. Keep up
    your pomposity, Brucie.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 13, 2011
  5. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 8/8/2011 4:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> If you want to play, measure the resolving power of your lens&
    >> sensor at, say, wide open (so the system is limited by the lens),
    >> and at wide open with lots of extension tube in between.


    > I blow up images to 12 x 18 and have not noticed any difference. Perhaps
    > if I was doing scientific documentation, rather than abstracts, I would
    > notice the difference.


    Depending on the abstracts it might be hard to notice even a rather
    low resolution of the image. Images that live from tiny details
    resolved in a large image might be another matter --- and no,
    "scientific documentation" doesn't necessarily fall under that.
    (scientists tend to use longer lenses instead of higher
    resolution.)

    - The Mars Rovers have 1MP cameras.
    - The Venus landers all had low resolution cameras, if they
    had them.
    - Huygens had 160x254 high resolution, 176x254 medium resolution
    (shorter focal length) and 128x254 side-looking (even shorter
    focal length) area (and some science data) on a single 488x254
    pixel chip --- and the data was highly compressed.
    - Gallileo had a 800x800 CCD.

    Even Hubble has only 16MPix (on 2 chips) on it's WFC.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 13, 2011
  6. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/13/2011 5:47 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 8/8/2011 4:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    >
    >>> If you want to play, measure the resolving power of your lens&
    >>> sensor at, say, wide open (so the system is limited by the lens),
    >>> and at wide open with lots of extension tube in between.

    >
    >> I blow up images to 12 x 18 and have not noticed any difference. Perhaps
    >> if I was doing scientific documentation, rather than abstracts, I would
    >> notice the difference.

    >
    > Depending on the abstracts it might be hard to notice even a rather
    > low resolution of the image. Images that live from tiny details
    > resolved in a large image might be another matter --- and no,
    > "scientific documentation" doesn't necessarily fall under that.
    > (scientists tend to use longer lenses instead of higher
    > resolution.)
    >
    > - The Mars Rovers have 1MP cameras.
    > - The Venus landers all had low resolution cameras, if they
    > had them.
    > - Huygens had 160x254 high resolution, 176x254 medium resolution
    > (shorter focal length) and 128x254 side-looking (even shorter
    > focal length) area (and some science data) on a single 488x254
    > pixel chip --- and the data was highly compressed.
    > - Gallileo had a 800x800 CCD.
    >
    > Even Hubble has only 16MPix (on 2 chips) on it's WFC.
    >

    That may well be a battery life issue.

    I know of few microscopes that are telephoto, or have low resolving power.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 14, 2011
  7. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 8/13/2011 5:47 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> Depending on the abstracts it might be hard to notice even a rather
    >> low resolution of the image. Images that live from tiny details
    >> resolved in a large image might be another matter --- and no,
    >> "scientific documentation" doesn't necessarily fall under that.
    >> (scientists tend to use longer lenses instead of higher
    >> resolution.)


    >> - The Mars Rovers have 1MP cameras.
    >> - The Venus landers all had low resolution cameras, if they
    >> had them.
    >> - Huygens had 160x254 high resolution, 176x254 medium resolution
    >> (shorter focal length) and 128x254 side-looking (even shorter
    >> focal length) area (and some science data) on a single 488x254
    >> pixel chip --- and the data was highly compressed.
    >> - Gallileo had a 800x800 CCD.


    >> Even Hubble has only 16MPix (on 2 chips) on it's WFC.


    > That may well be a battery life issue.


    The Venus landers were not battery limited, but (once they
    managed to land them without being crushed) limited by their
    carrier satellite being in antenna view to relay the data.
    Gallileo was nuclear powered, so battery life doesn't come into
    the equation. The Mars rovers are limited by their solar panels,
    but their power use is very much other things (heating, driving,
    rock abrasing comes to mind).

    Huygens was bandwidth limited.

    Hubble has solar cells and I doubt it is battery life limited.

    > I know of few microscopes that are telephoto, or have low resolving power.


    How many megapixels do they have, then? OK, that's a trick
    question: resolving power doesn't indicate a large image circle ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 16, 2011
  8. Neil Jones

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 08/08/2011 21:35, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 7/28/2011 3:25 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article<4e31b63e$0$12493$-secrets.com>, PeterN

    >
    >>>> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.

    >
    >>> that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for
    >>> an extension (some lenses might be though).

    >
    >> It should have little noticeable effect on the resolution. If I am
    >> wrong, I would like proof.

    >
    > Extension tubes increase the distance between the lens and the
    > sensor. Unless you've got a telecentric lens (one where the
    > rays already leave the lens perfectly parallel --- and where an
    > extension tube therefore has zero effect) the rays are spreading
    > out to the sensor. Increasing said distance causes the rays to
    > spread more (and hit a wider area than the sensor covers).


    If you are really serious about using the lens this way you have a
    reversing ring to mount the lens back to front on the camera. That way
    the side designed to be close to things with a flat field is facing the
    subject and the long drift length is on the side designed for it.

    Some lenses don't like to be used with light paths this way round.

    There are dedicated macro lenses that will do a better job at seriously
    close quarters. You tend to also need a ringflash as well.
    >
    > This does magnify some lens defects (say fringing). It also
    > magnifies the image, which in turn means the lens has to deliver
    > a higher resolution for the same resolution at the sensor.
    >
    > If your sensor can resolve enough to be worthy of the lens without
    > extension tube, it'll now see a worse performance. If however the
    > sensor is usually challenged to resolve what the lens delivers,
    > extension tubes might have no effect (depending on how long
    > they are).
    >
    >
    > If you want to play, measure the resolving power of your lens&
    > sensor at, say, wide open (so the system is limited by the lens),
    > and at wide open with lots of extension tube in between.


    I have an example actually pushing things to the limit with a
    diffraction limited 10" SCT f6.3 scope in combination with both a 2x
    teleconverter and a 0.6x focal reducer. The magnification range is
    limited by the amount of backfocus adjustment that the main optics can
    provide. Ordinary camera lenses have a lot less flexibility.

    The images are scans of 35mm 100ASA slide film.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Aug 16, 2011
  9. Neil Jones

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > At my rate of $250 per hour, up to 1995 when I ceased practice,
    > fees added up fast.


    <edited>

    Does "1995" mean $1,995?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 18, 2011
  10. Neil Jones

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > Used car dealers used to pack a faulty gear train with hamburger meat to
    > muffle the clanking of missing teeth.


    That >definitely< ain't kosher...in more ways than one!

    > They also turned back the odometer.


    Old hat.

    > Either is clearly fraud, despite any exclusion to the contrary, unless
    > the exclusion specifies the defect..


    My late father was an auto mechanic and licensed used car dealer. He
    never tried any of the grievous scams you've cited, though.

    Just minor things, such as spraying black paint on tires, and under
    the hood. These slight retouches didn't affect performance or safety,
    of course.

    (Sort of like airbrushing, if I may make an on-topic comment?)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 18, 2011
  11. Neil Jones

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > Also, I don't believe Bruce killfiled me. Just recently, he made a
    > statement abut me, that was almost a verbatim about something I said
    > about the moth man.


    <edited>

    Myself, I miss our redoubtable P&S advocate ("Moth Man"). He was
    still with us, in the spring; did his species' mating season begin,
    perchance?

    > Meanwhile life goes on hopefully for all of us, in good health for
    > a long time.


    Hear, hear!

    > No I


    "No I" >what<?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 18, 2011
  12. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/18/2011 6:30 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >
    > <heavily edited for brevity>
    >
    >> At my rate of $250 per hour, up to 1995 when I ceased practice,
    >> fees added up fast.

    >
    > <edited>
    >
    > Does "1995" mean $1,995?
    >


    OK that was ambiguous. I once handled a commercial contingency case. I
    put in about 22 hours and settled it for $979,999. My share was 1/3. You
    do the math. On an hourly basis that was probably the most lucrative
    case I ever handled.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 19, 2011
  13. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/18/2011 6:30 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >
    > <heavily edited for brevity>
    >
    >> Also, I don't believe Bruce killfiled me. Just recently, he made a
    >> statement abut me, that was almost a verbatim about something I said
    >> about the moth man.

    >
    > <edited>
    >
    > Myself, I miss our redoubtable P&S advocate ("Moth Man"). He was
    > still with us, in the spring; did his species' mating season begin,
    > perchance?
    >
    >> Meanwhile life goes on hopefully for all of us, in good health for
    >> a long time.

    >
    > Hear, hear!
    >
    >> No I

    >
    > "No I">what<?
    >


    Forgot to delete something I decided not to say.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 19, 2011
  14. Neil Jones

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    >
    > > On 8/18/2011 6:30 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > >> PeterN wrote:

    > >
    > > <heavily edited for brevity>
    > >
    > >> At my rate of $250 per hour, up to 1995 when I ceased practice, fees
    > >> added up fast.

    > >
    > > <edited>
    > >
    > > Does "1995" mean $1,995?

    >
    >
    > OK that was ambiguous. I once handled a commercial contingency case. I
    > put in about 22 hours and settled it for $979,999. My share was 1/3. You
    > do the math.


    Okay...according to Windows XP's little "Calculator" application, it's
    $326,666 (or $14,848 per hour).

    With that kind of bread, you should be able to afford nice camera gear!

    > On an hourly basis that was probably the most lucrative case I ever
    > handled.


    Send some surplus cash to Rochester, NY, please. (Kodak needs all the
    help it can get, these days.)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 26, 2011
  15. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/26/2011 6:39 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 8/18/2011 6:30 PM, John Turco wrote:
    >>>> PeterN wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <heavily edited for brevity>
    >>>
    >>>> At my rate of $250 per hour, up to 1995 when I ceased practice, fees
    >>>> added up fast.
    >>>
    >>> <edited>
    >>>
    >>> Does "1995" mean $1,995?

    >>
    >>
    >> OK that was ambiguous. I once handled a commercial contingency case. I
    >> put in about 22 hours and settled it for $979,999. My share was 1/3. You
    >> do the math.

    >
    > Okay...according to Windows XP's little "Calculator" application, it's
    > $326,666 (or $14,848 per hour).
    >
    > With that kind of bread, you should be able to afford nice camera gear!
    >
    >> On an hourly basis that was probably the most lucrative case I ever
    >> handled.

    >
    > Send some surplus cash to Rochester, NY, please. (Kodak needs all the
    > help it can get, these days.)
    >


    That was a one shot deal and I did not mention expenses. However, I have
    no complaints except for things I stupidly did. But that is long story.
    Now the only important thing is the health and contentment of my family.
    All else is really unimportant.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 27, 2011
  16. Neil Jones

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    >
    > > On 8/26/2011 6:39 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > >> PeterN wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On 8/18/2011 6:30 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > >>>> PeterN wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> <heavily edited for brevity>
    > >>>
    > >>>> At my rate of $250 per hour, up to 1995 when I ceased practice, fees
    > >>>> added up fast.
    > >>>
    > >>> <edited>
    > >>>
    > >>> Does "1995" mean $1,995?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> OK that was ambiguous. I once handled a commercial contingency case. I
    > >> put in about 22 hours and settled it for $979,999. My share was 1/3.
    > >> You do the math.

    > >
    > > Okay...according to Windows XP's little "Calculator" application, it's
    > > $326,666 (or $14,848 per hour).
    > >
    > > With that kind of bread, you should be able to afford nice camera gear!
    > >
    > >> On an hourly basis that was probably the most lucrative case I ever
    > >> handled.

    > >
    > > Send some surplus cash to Rochester, NY, please. (Kodak needs all the
    > > help it can get, these days.)

    >
    >
    > That was a one shot deal and I did not mention expenses. However, I have
    > no complaints except for things I stupidly did. But that is long story.
    > Now the only important thing is the health and contentment of my family.
    > All else is really unimportant.



    In the end, health trumps wealth; the things that money >can't< buy, are
    the most precious of all.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Sep 2, 2011
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andy Munnis

    Guidance on a buying a new digital camera

    Andy Munnis, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    810
    Michael Geary
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    767
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    436
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  4. alex

    Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible?

    alex, Jun 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,025
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    431
Loading...

Share This Page